From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harald Welte Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix iptables on systems with discontiguous processor ids Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:44:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20051011104446.GJ4290@rama> References: <20051010164141.GG5627@rama> <20051010.141518.60492651.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="X+nYw8KZ/oNxZ8JS" Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" , bdschuym@pandora.be Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051010.141518.60492651.davem@davemloft.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org --X+nYw8KZ/oNxZ8JS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:15:18PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Harald Welte > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:41:41 +0200 >=20 > > This is my proposed patch for the problem you've described. Please test > > and submit. If it works, I'll also prepare a patch for {arp,ip6}_table= s. >=20 > Ebtables needs it too. "git grep num_possible_cpus" shows all > of the users in the whole tree, %80 of which are the netfilter > cases we're fixing here :-) mh. I'm not very familiar with the ebtables specific changes, and apparently it differs quite a bit in counter handling. Anyway, I've tried to come up with a patch that also includes ebtables. Bart: Could you please comment on it? If you have missed the previous thread: some systems have smp processor id's "0 2" but no "1", e.g. num_possible_cpus() is 2 (and we allocate two rulesets), but then we try to index it with '2', e.g. the non-existing 3rd copy. Unfortunately I don't have a SMP box during travel, so I can't test whether it at least still works on 'normal' smp boxes. So all I can say is that it looks right, and it compiles with CONFIG_SMP. Please, could anybody test this on their SMP boxes ASAP? I won't be having access to a SMP machine for testing until 2005-10-18, and presumably we don't want to delay this fix. --=20 - Harald Welte http://netfilter.org/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie --X+nYw8KZ/oNxZ8JS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDS5eeXaXGVTD0i/8RAmMWAJ9QRBXGIfWydb9CnANePDLT1Pq0TwCfS2Zh tsnb2jLaYaWKjmeL++zzm+4= =o14E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --X+nYw8KZ/oNxZ8JS--